Case Summary: Vishaka & Others vs State of Rajasthan & Others (1997)
Case Stats
Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241 | AIR 1997 SC 3011
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.S. Verma (C.J.), Sujata V. Manohar, B.N. Kirpal (JJ)
Date of Judgment: 13 August 1997
Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 666-670 of 1992
Final Decision: Disposed Of
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=266615
Law Points Raised
1. Whether sexual harassment at the workplace violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether in the absence of a specific law, the Supreme Court can frame guidelines to prevent such harassment.
3. Role of international conventions (CEDAW) and obligations under Article 253.
4. Applicability of Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights in cases of gender-based workplace harassment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace is a clear violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and also affects the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g). In the absence of specific legislation, the Court laid down guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines) based on the principles of the Constitution and international conventions like CEDAW.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court issued legally binding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces until proper legislation is enacted. These guidelines, widely known as the Vishaka Guidelines, mandated the formation of complaints committees, employer accountability, and awareness mechanisms. These guidelines remained in force until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
- Para 1–3: Context and cause for the writ petition.
- Para 5–6: Constitutional and legal provisions.
- Para 7–10: Role of international conventions and Article 253.
- Para 11: Beijing Principles and role of judiciary.
- Final paragraphs: Consent of Union of India and framing of Vishaka Guidelines.
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=266615